[r-t] History

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Jun 6 17:12:01 UTC 2014

>Well I do - it clutters the definition of a peal,

I fail to see why defining a peal as ringing at least 5000 changes is more complicated than defining it as 5040  (plus whole numbers of extents if needs be) on 7 or less and at least 5000 on 8 or more. Sure it declutters the definition.

I'm not sure that I would argue to the death over this one it just seems that it is an easier definition. Also I would allow peals which aren't an integer multiple of the extent on the relevant number of bells. It seems a bit crazy that you couldn't ring an 8000 of Triples and call it an peal.

An interesting question. If ringing still exists in 3000 years time, 5014 (Triples) would presumably still be a date touch move on 26 years), a 5040 is fine and (moving on another 14 years) a 5054 (triples) a miscellaneous performance, or date touch.

As I say I don't think this is worth a major battle but I do think the answer isn't trivial.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list